Researching bibliographic data with users: examples of 5 qualitative
studies
Katarina Švab
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Library and Information Science and Book
Studies, Slovenia. Email: [email protected].
Tanja Merčun
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Library and Information Science and Book
Studies, Slovenia. Email: [email protected].
Maja Žumer
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Library and Information Science and Book
Studies, Slovenia. Email: [email protected].
Abstract
Introduction. Library catalogues enable people to
explore and take advantage of the wealth of library
collections. However, their use is relatively low, not
only because they are difficult to use but also
because they lack the needed data.
Research questions. To go beyond the constraints
of current bibliographic data and find potentially
missing data elements, our research investigated
what data is needed to help different types of users
find, identify, select, obtain, and explore
information in the context of fiction.
Methods. Using a combination of qualitative
methods (observations, surveys, and interviews),
different groups of users were investigated. For
each of the groups a special study was designed
to find out based on which criteria they selected
books. Rounding up the series of studies, a focus
group and interviews were organised with
reference librarians to tap into their rich
experience.
Results. Although the paper briefly outlines some
of the main conclusions from the five studies, more
focus is given on the study descriptions from the
viewpoint of their design.
Conclusions. To improve digital or classical
services, investigation of information needs is one
of the key areas that can benefit considerably from
qualitative research methods. Our paper provides
examples of how these studies can be designed
and what kind of research questions they can help
us answer.
Keywords:
information
needs,
interviews,
observations, focus groups, library catalogues
Introduction
Library catalogues present the central tool that enables
people to explore and take advantage of the wealth of library
collections. However, their use is relatively low, not only
because they are inefficient and too complicated (Calhoun et
al., 2009) but also because they lack the needed data (Hypén,
2014) that would help users as well as librarians not only
find, but also select, identify, and explore the desired
materials. This indicates that changes are needed if libraries
wish to provide valuable services and make the best use of
their collections. What has often been forgotten is that it is
not enough to only build more modern systems, it is essential
that they are centred around users’ needs and the information
seeking process.
While fiction represents an important part of (public)
library collections and circulation, its retrieval presents one
of the major problems in current catalogues also because it
often leads to long lists of results where it is difficult to
distinguish between different editions of the same work or
explore its various versions.
Studies (Mikkonen & Vakkari, 2012; Goodall, 1989,
Pogorelec, 2004) show that only between 10 and 20 percent
of adult readers use the library catalogue to access fiction.
With the catalogue predominantly supporting only knownitem searches, users have developed tactics for finding good
fiction books without the help of library catalogue (Ross,
2001) by scanning or browsing bookshelves, an approach
that is becoming more difficult as collections grow in size
(Hypén, 2014) and as more and more books becomes
available in electronic form.
Current online library catalogues are thus faced with two
tasks connected to fiction: a) to support tactics other than
known-item search (Saarinen & Vakkari, 2013) and b) to
provide all the needed data for identification and selection of
fiction based on bibliographic description. Pöntinen &
Vakkari (2013) point out that especially with the rise of ebook collections, it is necessary to study how readers select
books by using metadata in order to inform the design of
metadata for fiction. This is also true for traditional
collections as users want to be able to determine a book’s
relevance using their computer and expect information to
assist them in this evaluation (Calhoun et al., 2009). All this
suggests that libraries need to make it easier for users to
determine whether the items meet their needs without
examining the physical copy (Chercourt & Marshall, 2013).
Also Saarinen & Vakkari (2013) observe that there is a lack
of studies analysing from which attributes users infer that the
book is what they are looking for. Another interesting
question that arises is also whether and how different types
of library users view bibliographic data in the retrieval
process (Tosaka & Weng, 2010).
Our research therefore set out to investigate how people
select fiction based on bibliographic records and how in
physical form, thus trying to elicit what bibliographic data is
needed to help different types of users find, identify, select,
obtain, and explore information in the context of fiction. Are
all the decisive elements presented to the users or should
library catalogues be enriched with additional information?
Literature review
Research on enriching bibliographic records in library
catalogues has a long history (for example Cochrane &
Markey, 1983; Matthews, 1983). When asked what
additional features users would wish to see in a catalogue
entry, they most commonly requested summary, abstract,
and other content information. Also more recent studies
(Calhoun et al., 2009) found that tables of contents and
abstract/summaries are among the most desired data-quality
enhancements for end-users. Not only significant from an
informative point of view, a number of research (Dinkins &
Kirkland, 2006; Morris, 2001) shows that enriched
bibliographic records have an important influence on
circulation. Chercourt and Maschall (2013), for example,
report that there is a positive correlation between adding
tables of contents and increased circulation for certain
groups of items, especially older materials.
Information about some important bibliographic elements
can also be found in studies that investigate how people
select books they wish to read for pleasure. Ross (2001), for
example, reports on 194 intensive open-ended interviews
with adult readers which, among other, reveal that author,
genre, cover, title, sample page, and publisher give readers
important clues on the reading experience they can expect
and that subject, setting, and the physical size of the book
help them match their book choices to the desired reading
experience. Similarly Saarinen & Vakkari (2013) looked at
which attributes readers perceive as indicators of a good
novel and what tactics they use to find such a book in a
public library. Using observation and semi-structured
interviews with 16 adult library users, one of their main
conclusions was that systems should support fiction retrieval
by reader typology.
Focusing on children’s literature, Anderson et al. (2001)
studied how parents selected books for their four-year-olds.
12 fathers and 12 mothers were asked to pick out 5 out of 14
books to read to their children in the following week and to
give reasons for their selection. While the choice was
somewhat dependant on the parent’s gender and the gender
of the child, the reoccurring criteria were also the aesthetics
of the book, familiarity with the particular book or author,
content, educational value, reading level, values, children’s
interests, and general trends.
Pöntinen & Vakkari (2013) analysed how readers select
fiction in online public library catalogues and compared
whether there are differences in the selection between an
enriched catalogue and a traditional one. Using eye-tracking,
30 participants were tested in a between-subject experiment
where the researchers examined which elements were most
important to users by following their gaze. In contrary to
some other studies, they observed that users’ choice was
based on external attributes of books, whereas the content
description did not seem to be as crucial.
Using think-aloud sessions, Hoder and Liu (2013) asked
20 participants to complete 10 tasks in a library catalogue
and verbalize their thoughts, specifically those relating to
their use of record elements. The study showed that
participants found title, author, subject, year, material type,
edition, table of contents, and co-author most useful.
Chang (2012) also investigated which key points help
students make a decision. Carrying out interviews and
observations with 60 students, she found out students use
enhanced bibliographic elements for selection and
identification of needed resources and that “excerpted
contents” and covers helped them make a decision between
different available versions.
Besides using observations and interviews with users,
some researchers also applied content analysis methods to
identify attributes used not only in library catalogues but also
in other services such as social cataloguing sites and online
bookstores (for example Adkins & Bossaller, 2007; Šauperl,
2013). The results indicate how bibliographic records could
be enriched and what information and services users might
expect from the library (Spiteri, 2009).
An interesting aspect has been researched also by Pejtersen
(1977), who looked at library catalogues from the
perspective of reference librarians. She argued that librarians
faced two main difficulties: first, the problem of identifying
the user’s needs, and then the problem of formulating a
relevant search strategy among books which are not
classified according to the needs and which classification
characterizes only some aspects of the book, insufficient in
the view of the multi-dimensional needs of the user.
Analysing almost 300 user-librarian conversations, the
author identified five main dimensions of user needs: subject
matter, frame (time, place), author’s intention/attitude,
accessibility (readability, physical characteristics such as
typography, modern/old, series, size, and volume), and other
formulations (author’s name, title, similar books etc.).
Research agenda: 5 studies
Many of the studies looked at more traditional elements in
bibliographic records with the addition of cover and some
added content summaries, but did not try to introduce other
information that is not part of current cataloguing practice.
Our research wished to investigate more closely a wider
range of elements (not only related to content, but also to
attributes) that might be important to users when they search
and select fiction books. To do this, we designed studies with
both users and librarians who answer users’ requests on daily
basis.
3 different groups of users (mothers of pre-school children,
high-school students and adults looking for leisure reading)
were each given a set of tasks where they operated with both
bibliographic records and physical copies of the books.
Observing their decisions and questioning them on how they
made their choices or why they changed their decision on the
book they selected enabled us to get a closer look at which
elements presented the key factors as well as which elements
might not be included in the current records, but were
obviously important. We were also interested in how these
key elements varied among different user groups and
whether enriched records improved the users’ satisfaction
with the chosen book. Besides examining users, we also felt
that librarians would be able to provide a good insight into
the topic, which is why we designed a focus group and an
interview study to tap into their experiences.
Mothers of pre-school children
Aim. To establish whether parents are able to find a
suitable book and differentiate between different texts and
editions bearing the same title solely using the information
recorded in a bibliographic record.
Data collection technique. Questionnaire and observation.
Research questions. Are current bibliographic records
appropriate for the selection of books for small children?
Deciding among several similar books, how do parents make
their selection when using bibliographic records in a library
catalogue and how when they choose between physical
copies in a library?
Study Design. Six bibliographic records found under a title
search “Cinderella” were selected and printed from an
existing library catalogue. Issued in different years, in
varying sizes, with different illustrations/translators, and
even as adaptations, such a set of records presented a
realistic search result in a library catalogue that any user
searching for a story of Cinderella would have to handle.
Procedure. 26 mothers of pre-school children (under 6
years old) with varying levels of education were included in
the study. The interviews took place in July and August 2011
outside the library setting: at children’s playgrounds, in the
parks, on the beach etc.
After some general questions about picture books,
libraries, bookstores, and library catalogues, six
bibliographic records were presented to the mothers. They
were asked to choose a record they found most suitable for
their child and to comment which attributes the decision was
based on. Afterwards they were presented with the book
described in the chosen record and requested to comment on
their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the book. In the end,
participants were handed all six books with a question which
of them they would choose as most appropriate for their
needs and would therefore hypothetically wish to borrow.
Results. In the Cinderella bibliographic records, parents
paid most attention to the author, the publication year, form
of work, the translator, and the extent of the book. However,
when presented with the book they selected using
bibliographic records, 19 out of 26 mothers were not
satisfied, the main argument being illustrations and the
physical condition of the copy. After seeing all the available
versions in a physical form, as many as 22 mothers said that
they would prefer a different version from the one they got
based on bibliographic records, the main reasons being
illustrations, original text, and the condition of the copy.
• In general it seemed that illustrations, content, the cover,
the size of the book and the length of the story are most
important when parents select picture books for their
children. 21 out of 26 mothers said that it is usually
important to them which version or edition they borrow.
• Interviews revealed that elements such as paper thickness
(for cardboard books), cover image, sample pages (as in the
case of some online bookshop catalogues, such as Amazon),
font size, letter case, page layout, preservation, age
appropriateness would be welcome in a library catalogue.
Comments.
• The study was not carried out in a library setting, thus
including also mothers who do not visit the library.
High school students
Aim. To get an overview of bibliographic data that is
important to young students when they select books for their
home-reading assignments.
Data collection technique. Questionnaire and observation
Research questions: How do high school students select
and identify which book is appropriate among 11 different
versions of Don Quixote? Which attributes are the most
important when they need books for assigned reading? Do
they even use the library catalogue?
Study Design. 11 editions of Don Quixote, a work listed as
required reading in high school, were selected (abridged
editions, full editions in two or four volumes, different
translations and additional contents such as forewords and
biographies etc.). The bibliographic descriptions were not
taken from existing catalogues but were created (content and
form-wise) by ourselves, using traditional bibliographic
elements presented in catalogues as well as some attributes
and relationships of our own choice (weight, binding, colour
of the cover, short description, contents etc.). All records
were presented in a mindmap where the elements were
logically grouped.
Procedure. 105 high school students from two different
secondary schools were included in the study which took
place in November 2010. Students were recruited in the
school library and on the hallways during breaks.
Presented with 11 bibliographic records, students were
asked to select the one that would best fit the needs of their
home reading assignments. The chosen book was then
handed to the participant who had to examine it and tell
whether it met his expectations. In case students expressed
dissatisfaction, they were asked to explain why they did not
like the chosen book and were offered another chance to
select among bibliographic records. Again they were offered
the physical copy of the book for them to comment on their
second choice. After two selections, students were offered
all the books described in bibliographic records and were
asked to compare their selected books with other available
books, commenting why another book would be better or
why the book they chose using the bibliographic record was
still their preferred one.
Results. Choosing between bibliographic records, the most
important elements for high school students were: a note
indicating what contents are included in the edition,
illustrations, intended audience, and genre. However, when
deciding between different copies in a physical form the
deciding attributes were: the state of the copy, newer edition
and the year of publication, appearance of the book,
attractiveness of the cover, the weight of the book, as well as
the size and the shape of the letters.
• 68% of students were satisfied with the book that they
selected using bibliographic records. When presented with
physical copies of all the 11 versions, however, 49%
participants would prefer a different book from the one they
have chosen.
• Only 33% of participants would use a library catalogue
for the purposes of home reading.
Comments.
• Interview is a time-consuming method of data collection,
but it also provides more detailed and explanatory answers.
In case of high school students we have seen that not only
have they been willing to participate (only 5 refused to take
part in the research), but were also very honest in their
answers.
Adults
Aim. To get a better understanding of which bibliographic
elements are important and useful for identification and
selection of relevant fiction materials in case of adults.
Data collection technique. Questionnaire and observation
Research Questions. Do a different record design and
enriched content have an influence on users’ satisfaction
with the chosen book? Which bibliographic elements play a
key role when adults select among different versions of the
same work using bibliographic records and when they make
a choice using physical copies? Based on which elements do
adults change their selection when they are given the
physical copies of the books?
Study Design. Focusing on fiction, 3 works (each
represented with 6 different editions) have been chosen for
our test: Quo Vadis (Henryk Sienkiewicz), The Godfather
(Mario Puzo), and The Catcher in the rye (J. D. Salinger).
For each edition, a physical copy of the book was obtained
and three different types of bibliographic records prepared:
the first (type A) was copied from the Slovenian union
catalogue, while the other two were designed by us and
differed in form as well as the set of bibliographic elements.
Record type B therefore included some information that was
already present in the next generation catalogues as well as
some other attributes that users might find interesting such
as weight and the colour of the spine, while record type C
was based on FRBR.
Procedure. The study was carried out during July and
August 2012 with 108 volunteers, who were invited to take
part in the study as they were departing from a public library.
Each participant in the study would first answer some
general questions about the library catalogue and the
attributes that were important to him or her when selecting
fiction. Afterwards, participants were asked to complete two
tasks, first using the bibliographic records and then the
actual books.
Based on the six presented bibliographic descriptions for a
title, participants selected the one they felt was best for their
information need and would hypothetically wish to borrow.
After selecting the record, participants were presented with
the physical copy of that book and asked to comment on
whether they would be happy with their choice. Then the
participants would be given the remaining five editions they
did not choose with the question whether they would rather
select another edition based on a physical copy and why. All
the titles as well as the types of bibliographic records were
counterbalanced, which means that each participant would
get the three titles in a random order and would be randomly
given a different type of bibliographic description for each
title, creating all combinations of titles and records.
Results. Author, description on the back cover, theme,
genre, and the cover presented the key elements in
participants’ selection.
• We could also observe that in current bibliographic
records, the lack of elements leads users to make
assumptions based on the data that is provided (for example,
linking the year to the state of the book and the modernity of
language, the size of the book with the size of the letters and
the density of text, the publishing house with the quality of
the translation etc.).
asked which questions they could not answer well using the
library catalogue and what were the most common user
questions and requirements when searching for fiction. Each
of the tasks and questions served as a starting point for a
discussion.
Procedure. Conducted in January 2014, the focus group
involved 5 reference librarians from a major public library.
Using a combination of tasks and questions as the basis, the
focus group took two hours. All the tasks and questions were
designed in a way that each participant would first express
her view and then the moderator would lead the discussion
by presenting more detailed questions and by encouraging
the exchange of views.
• When participants received the book they selected using
bibliographic records, their satisfaction with the book was
quite high for all three record types (between 81% and 84%).
However, when presented with all 6 physical copies of the
book, there were again a number of participants who wanted
to change their selection. With traditional bibliographic
records, 43% of participants would wish to change the book,
while with the enriched records this percentage was reduced:
with record type B to 38% and with record type C to 29%.
This indicated that even relatively small improvements in
bibliographic records (adding an image of a typical page,
book cover and identification of contents) could enhance
users’ satisfaction by letting them know more in detail what
kind of book they can expect, thus closing the gap between
the expected and the actual copy.
Results. Librarians were generally very satisfied with the
current catalogue, but despite their positive and uncritical
view on the library catalogue, the conversation revealed that
it does not help them answer all users’ questions as it does
not include all the needed information and functions. Asking
them to list the attributes and relationships that define user
needs for certain groups revealed some interesting aspects:
Comments. A relatively small number of people refused to
take part in the study and the ones who participated showed
willingness to explain their decisions. This may be
contributed to the personal approach to each individual.
• Using different bibliographic records in a printed form
enabled the participants to be fully focused on bibliographic
data without being distracted by other catalogue functions.
Comments.Conducting a focus group study, there is always
a danger that some individuals will dominate the discussion,
thus preventing more quiet participants to express their
opinion. Trying to avoid this problem and create a more
equal environment, we also designed individual tasks which
gave each participant the chance to formulate their answer
which were then used as a basis for discussion.
• Using video recording or eye tracking could enhance the
amount of data gathered in such a study.
• Focus group presented an excellent base for planning
future research.
Librarians – focus group
Librarians – interviews
Aim. To establish how well current library catalogues help
librarians answer users’ questions and to get the librarian’s
perspective on what is important when users choose fiction.
Using group interaction we wished to encourage a more indepth discussion on the topics that would be provoked by
sharing of experience.
Data collection technique. Focus group
Research Questions. Are current library catalogues helpful
to reference librarians? What kind of questions do library
users pose to reference librarians and what attributes and
relationships are most important to them?
Study Design. Librarians were asked to choose from a list
of adjectives the ones that best describe their opinion of their
library catalogue and explain their choice. They were also
-
parents when searching for children books:
illustration, typography, reading level
children: illustrations, page layout
youth: short description, cover
high-school students: foreword, full text, abridged
edition
adults: awards, time period
elders: print size, the weight of the book
Aim. Similarly to focus group, the interviews also aimed at
tapping into librarians’ experience with the library catalogue
and perceptions of users’ needs they encounter daily. While
focus group has its advantages, it may also prevent
participants to be completely relaxed and open with their
opinions as they might fear what others think of their
answers, especially when related to their work. Not really
familiar with the method, librarians were also not that keen
on participating in a focus group study, but were happy to
accept an invitation to an interview about their work.
Data collection technique. Interview
Study Design. Retaining the same main questions from the
focus group, interviews aimed at the same goal but instead
of drawing on group dynamics they focused on gaining a
deeper understanding of an individual librarian.
Procedure. 6 interviews took place in three public libraries
during April 2014. The answers were recorded using a tape
recorder.
Results. Librarians described the current library catalogue
as useful, informative, and convenient. However, the
conversation also revealed that when the catalogue is not
useful, librarians tend to use various recommendation lists
on their webpages or search the web for more information.
• Selecting among different versions of the same work,
users will choose the one that looks nicer on the outside, but
typically a librarian would present all the available versions
to the users, leaving the final choice to them.
• Library users most often search for continuation of a
book, parts of a series, or movie adaptations. For different
reading levels and purposes, librarians pointed out the
following attributes:
-
parents when searching for children books: genre
-
children: illustrations
-
youth: thickness of book
-
high-school students: foreword
-
adults: genre, language, reading level
-
elders: print size
Comments. Compared to the focus group, the answers to
our questions were shorter, but participants would also
elaborate more on the questions they deemed important. As
with the focus group, the interviewer needed to keep a close
eye to make sure that the conversation did not drift too far
from the main theme.
our research agenda by combining user observation and
personal interviews would help us discover information that
would otherwise remain hidden. With interviews it was
possible to get a better understanding of participant’s
choices that in turn gave us the answer to the question which
bibliographic elements are important to certain user groups.
With our initial research we could see that users’ answers on
questions about bibliographic data differed from what we
could then observe when users were working with real
bibliographic records. That is why our later studies even
more carefully and deliberately included various
bibliographic records with different bibliographic data for
users to work on the chosen tasks.
Two studies, on the other hand, looked at reference
librarians as another distinct group of catalogue users. With
the intention to encourage a more in-depth reflection on the
usefulness and efficiency of a catalogue as librarian’s basic
reference tool, a focus group was carried out to engage
participants in a discussion. Having some difficulties in
recruiting librarians to participate in the focus group, we
decided to carry on with the same set of questions and tasks
using individual interviews. This way we could also gather
opinions and experience from librarians that would
otherwise not be able to take part in a focus group due to
different factors (distance, nature of their work). While the
gathered information from both studies gave a better insight
into user’s needs and preferences as viewed through the lens
of experienced librarians, we feel that additional studies such
as observations at reference desks or tasks similar to the ones
we have to other user groups would provide even more
information.
Discussion
With the longstanding cataloguing practice, it seems that
neither librarians nor other users ask (anymore) if the library
catalogue gives all the needed information or whether some
things are missing. Talking to the participants in our studies
it became obvious that librarians as well as users assume that
there was something wrong with their search strategy or with
their lack of knowledge about bibliographic data. When, for
example, one participant chose a different book when she
was given all the books in a physical form, she commented:
“It all says in the record, it is just that I don’t make out what
it means”. Similarly, a librarian in a focus group pointed out
that “everything can be found with UDC, it is just a bit
complicated”. The conviction that the library catalogue is
fine as it is and that the main problem lies in user’s
knowledge of the system is a big barrier towards creating a
more efficient catalogue. We have made some important
steps forward with better display of data, navigation and web
2.0 tools, however, it is the quality and the structure of data
that are the prerequisite for a useful catalogue, a catalogue
that would be better employed by its end-users.
Although a simple questionnaire would be less timeconsuming and easier to analyse, we felt that investigating
Conclusion
Libraries are part of a changing environment and
continuous research on what different user groups need is
essential if libraries wish to detect and quickly respond to
these changes. However, simply asking users what they
require or how they select books usually does not give very
comprehensive results as people may not consciously
recognize the elements they pay attention to; we have seen
that even for librarians such questions were difficult to
answer as they limited their thinking to the currently
available systems and bibliographic data. In case of our
studies, observing users as they performed and commented
on specific tasks yielded much richer information compared
to questionnaire type of answers provided at the beginning
of the study.
While our observations were not done on the field, we feel
that the tasks were close to a real-life situations (for example,
a user at home writes down the books he wishes to borrow,
but realises in the library that the desired book or edition is
not what he had expected) and therefore reflect some of the
issues users are faced with as they use the library catalogue.
Besides author and title there are differences among
different user groups in the needed bibliographic elements.
We have observed that next to more objective data such as
the size of the book or the number of pages, users often
selected a specific copy based on more subjective aspects
that are not always easy to determine, for example the
reading level and the condition of the copy.
In our studies we also observed a substantial gap between
the choices made using bibliographic records and those
using physical copies. The fact that so many participants
would select a different edition if they were choosing among
physical copies is a clear indication that more user studies
on this topic are needed in order to design more informative
bibliographic records. Such research will be needed also for
e-book collections where some attributes will become
irrelevant (weight, letter size) while other will retain their
importance (for example, is there a foreword or a biography
included in the book).
REFERENCES
Adkins, D. & Bossaller, J.E. (2007). Fiction access points access
computer-mediated book information sources: A comparison of
online bookstores, reader advisory databases, and public library
catalogs. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 354-368.
Mikkonen, A. & Vakkari, P. (2012). Readers' search strategies for
accessing books in public libraries. In: Proceedings of the 4th
IIIX Symposium (pp.214-233). New York: ACM
Morris, R.C. (2001). Online tables of contents for books: effect on
usage. Bulletin of the Medical Libraries Association, 89(1), 2936.
Pejtersen, A.M. (1977). Design of a classification scheme for
fiction based on an analysis of actual user-librarian
communication, and use of the scheme for control of librarian's
search strategies. In O. Harbo & L. Kajberg, (Ed.), Theory and
Application of Information Research: Proceedings of the Second
International Research Forum on Information Science, 3-6
August (Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen) (pp.146160). London: Mansell.
Pogorelec, A. (2004). Metodologija vsebinske obdelave leposlovja.
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Ljubljana, University of
Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts.
Pöntinen, J. & Vakkari, P. (2013). Selecting fiction in library
catalogs: a gaze tracking study. In T. Aalberg et al (Ed.),
Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries:
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital
Libraries, TPDL 2013, Valletta, Malta, September 22-26, 2013.
Proceedings (pp.72-83). Heilderberg: Springer.
Ross, C.S. (2001). Making choices: What readers say about
choosing books to read for pleasure. The Acquisitions Librarian,
13(25), 5-21.
Anderson. J., Anderson, A., Shapiro, J. & Lynch, J. (2001). Father's
and mother's book selection preferences for their four year old
children abstract. Reading Horizons, 41(4), 189-210.
Saarinen, K. & Vakkari, P. (2013). A sign of a good book: readers’
methods of accessing fiction in the public library. Journal of
Documentation, 69(5), 736-754.
Calhoun, K.S., Cantrell, J., Gallagher, P., & Cellantani, D. (2009).
Online catalogs: What users and librarians want. Dublin, OH:
OCLC.
Šauperl, A. (2013). Four Views of a novel: characteristics of
novels as described by publishers, librarians, literary theorist and
readers. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51, 624-654.
Chang, H.-C. (2010). Impact of enhanced records on identifying
and selecting behaviour to library catalog users. Journal of
Library and Information Science Research, 5(1).
Spiteri, L.F. (2009). The impact of Social cataloguing sites on the
construction of bibliographic records in the public library
catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(1), 52-73.
Chercourt, M. & Marshall, L. (2013). Making keywords work:
Connecting patrons to resources trough enhanced bibliographic
records. Technical Services Quarterly, 30(3), 285-295.
Tosaka, Y. & Weng, C. (2011). Reexaming content-enriched
access: Its effect on usage and discovery. College & Research
Libraries, 72(5), 412-427.
Cochrane, P.A & Markey, K. (1983). Catalog use studies- before
and after the introduction of online interactive catalogs: Impact
on design for subject access. Library & Information Science
Research, 5(4), 337-363.
Curriculum Vitae
Dinkins, D., & Kirkland, L. N. (2006). It’s what’s inside that
counts: Adding contents notes to bibliographic records and its
impact on circulation. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13
(1), 59-71.
Katarina Švab is a PhD student and a young researcher at
the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of
Library and Information Science and Book Studies.
Goodall, D. (1989). Browsing in public libraries. Loughborough,
Library and Information Statistics Unit.
Hoder and Liu (2013). The use of RDA elements in Support of
FRBR user tasks. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(8),
857-872
Hypén, K. (2014). Kirjasampo: Rethinking metadata. Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly, 52(2), 156-180.
Matthews, J.R., et al (Eds.). (1983). Using online catalogs: a
nationwide survey. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Dr. Tanja Merčun is a research associate at the University
of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Library and
Information Science and Book Studies.
Dr. Maja Žumer is Professor of information science at the
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of
Library and Information Science and Book Studies.